masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Lancer1289
Welcome to My Talk Page. If you don't find an issue that you have brought up with me in the past, then please check my archives because I have moved a lot of it to there. However I ask you to NOT edit there, just drop me a new message to bring up the discussion again. To leave me a message, please click on the "Leave message" button above, rather than just editing the whole page. That way I know what to look for. Thanks. If I left you a message on your talk page and you wish to discuss it, please do so there as I do not like cross page conversations. Thank you in advance. Star Trek So, from what I gather, you like Star Trek: DS9 & Voyager. What a coincidence, so do I! I have a friend who hadn't seen the rest of the DS( from about 5th season on so I decided to use my netflix account to get the discs and we picked up from there. I personally like DS9 more than TNG. I do like Voyager as well. In DS9 & Voyager, who are your favorite characters? From DS9 mine are Worf & Jadzia Dax while from Voyager I like the Doctor (hilarious bedside manner!) Oh, do tell your opinion about the new Star Trek movie. I for one loved it. GrandMoffVixen 18:42, August 23, 2010 (UTC) :Me personally if I had to pick a favorite then I couldn't as I like DS9 and Voyager about the same. Each has something different to offer compared to TOS, TNG, and Enterprise. I really couldn't pick a favorite. As to my favorite characters, DS9: Kira, O'Brian, or Worf. Worf was just out of his element in DS9. As to Voyager: Chakotay, Tuvok, or Neelix. I really can't pick a favorite for each. As to the new movie, I had my likes and dislikes. I can see why they did it, and they explained a few things that had people scratching their heads for a while. However I didn't like a few things they did, small things, but they still annoyed me. They aren't worth mentioning, but overall it was a good movie. I just hope they don't start remaking every movie, I don't want to see ST:II remade. Lancer1289 19:59, August 23, 2010 (UTC) :I will agree with you there that ST:II does not need remaking. It is just too good a classic. If it is remade, this is my reaction. Hehe GrandMoffVixen 20:15, August 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Indeed there is no need to remake classics, that's just wrong. Lancer1289 20:22, August 23, 2010 (UTC) ::Ok, I can't get this little annoyance to leave me alone. When the Enterprise fires the impulse engines, they always show the engines right behind the saucer on the neck. Now in the new Star Trek movie, anytime they use the impulse engines it shows the nacelles being the ones that provide the thrust whereas in all the movies and the series, thrust is provided by the engines located on the neck behind the saucer. For whatever reason, this bugs the crap out of me because they went to great lengths to research the things needed for the movie and they couldn't get this one little thing correct. Grr. What do you think? GrandMoffVixen 21:51, August 23, 2010 (UTC) :::That was one of my little niggles that I had. You'd think they would get where the thrust is coming from wouldn't you? The nacelles provide the way for a ship to enter warp speed. The impuse engines are completey different and operate from different places. Yes some were near the nacelles, NX-01, Voyager, and the Defiant off-hand, but they were never incorperated into the nacelles, for obvious reasons. There are a few other niggles that I have, but the fact that every other ship operates via their impusle engines, but you'd think they would get that right? Alas not, unless they changed how ships move. But why confuse people, that never turns out well. Lancer1289 21:59, August 23, 2010 (UTC) :::I know. I was having an OCD moment in the which I remembered my issue I have had with the new movie and I had to see what you thought about it. You know how it goes, expecially for being a sci-fi fan, let alone a fan of Star Trek. GrandMoffVixen 22:03, August 23, 2010 (UTC) ::::Indeed. Lancer1289 22:05, August 23, 2010 (UTC) Rachni Brood Warrior I gonna upload a screenshot for the Rachni Brood Warrior. I have two, which one? Screenshot 1 Screenshot 2 I like the second one more. Also I have a Rachni egg screenshot. Can it be used anywere in the Rachni article? SoulRipper 16:12, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :Personally I like one better. It's a closer shot and shows more detail. As to the egg, I'd really have to see it first before making a decision. Lancer1289 16:32, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :Ok added the first one. Can you remove that "I need a picture" thing? :The egg is this: Rachni Egg.PNG ::Hmm, the problem I have with that is we don't know that it is an egg. Given the cirumstances, I can't see anything else it could be, But they are seen wherever the rachni are. I'd say for now, I would have to say put it in, but don't list the caption as an egg because we don't know what it is. As to the caption, I'd say, "rachni object" or something like that. Unless you have concrete proof that it is an egg, then fine, but please share it first. Lancer1289 16:43, August 24, 2010 (UTC) ::Addendum: If you want to put it in the specualtion section, that section needs an image, then the caption of Egg would be acceptable becuase it is the appropiate section. Lancer1289 16:45, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :: ::Actually its a rachni egg because the models package name is "BIOG_APL_STD_'Rachni_Egg'_01_L.upk". Here is a screenshot in the UModel: Rachni Egg Umodel ::As you can see the models name (highlitghted with red) is also rachni egg. SoulRipper 16:59, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :::Well I don't mod my PC game, nor do I have any of that stuff. In fact the only game I have ever modded is Freelancer for the PC. Anyway since I can plainly see that it is called an egg in the files, I will have no objection to the caption. I still think the Speculation section of the article needs a picture, but then again anywhere will just about do. Also you don't need to link images like that, just do this, this is for the Citadel Council Chamber image in the Citadel: Expose Saren article. Citadel Council Chambers. The colon in front of the File tells the wiki code to link, rather than display. Lancer1289 17:04, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :::The only thing that I have changed in the game is the Flycam and the remove HUD code. I also will check what Dammej has done to remove completely the HUD. :::That thing with the link I dont get it. Can you anylize it a bit? I understand that 17:45, August 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::Well to be honest I haven't seen the code there are small things like that that tell it how to funcction. As to the "|", it allows for the creation of an alais. Like you would type out the full link, Legion, but in context it doesn't fit so you would instead type the geth or something like that. However creating unnecessary alais like Jacob Taylor are completely unnecessary as there is a Jacob redirect that takes people to the Jacob Taylor article. Lancer1289 18:53, August 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::Thats what Im talking about, [ [ :File:CitadelCouncilChambers.png | Citadel Council Chambers ] ]. I spaced it a bit to be visible. That thing in the middle of the .png and Citadel, the " | ", how I type or insert it. SoulRipper 19:52, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :::::Ah it is access using the "Shift" key. The "|" is located on the same key as "\", above the right enter key, well on every keyboard I have seen. Just use the shift key, then the "\" key to put it in. Lancer1289 19:56, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :::::F-----g s--t. Never saw that thing and it was always there. Thanks anyway. SoulRipper 19:59, August 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::::No problem. Lancer1289 20:01, August 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I noticed that Rachni concept art image next to trivia in the Rachni article. Thats actually a Rachni worker. Im gonna take a screenshot ingame of a Rachni worker. SoulRipper 22:25, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Well then that should go on the Rachni Worker article. As to the image, I have no idea if that is concept or not, but either way Workers appear green in-game, so I think it should stay. Lancer1289 22:43, August 24, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Where did that image came from. I only can find that image in google and one in this website which also discribes it as a rachni worker. No other source. Do you know anything? :::::::Also here is the ingame model as seen in UModel (the texture is not right, its just the normal map): Rachni Worker UModel :::::::Its the same pose. SoulRipper 22:54, August 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::Well excuse me. Lancer1289 23:45, August 24, 2010 (UTC) Horizon We dont even have any evidence that there were only humans. The PDA in ME: Incursion only shows human populations. I think its more accurate to say that there were those thousends of humans rather to say that the hole population were humans. In freedoms progress there was Vetor. We dont know if there were any aliens who may fleed, the bugs were only attacking humans. Also Horizon was not that little part were we explored in the game. If you look around there are other buildings that are not accesible. Just my thoughts. Also what about an article about the Omega 2 Relay? SoulRipper 12:35, August 25, 2010 (UTC) :Well the thing is that Horizon and Freedom's Progress are human colonies and Veetor was an exception on FP. I can't say no to having that on the Citadel article, if it isn't there, but on colonies that have more evidence that only humans are there, I'd have to say no. Lancer1289 12:41, August 25, 2010 (UTC) ::If the number in the source is for human population, then we must say that whatever number is on the page is for humans only. This is pretty cut and dry in my opinion. The only thing we know is the human population, so the only thing we can say worth confidence is that the human population is X. It's not like that could possibly be inaccurate either. If the population is human only, then the number is accurate, and no matter how many others show up, the number is still accurate because we specified that the number was humans only.JakePT 12:49, August 25, 2010 (UTC) ::Another example, "According to Mass Effect: Incursion, the exact population of Earth is 11,490,225,106 humans. " . That doesnt sounds very accurate. It should be "According to Mass Effect: Incursion, the exact human population of Earth is 11,490,225,106. " or something like that. Because we dont know how many aliens live on earth. Maybe there are 3 million aliens, who knows. ::And also this " the population of Terra Nova has actually decreased since the events of Mass Effect, from 4.4 million to 4,145,412 humans". I dont remember that it was stated anywere that on Terra Nova there were only humans. ::The Freedoms Progress and Horizon are human colonies BUT that doesnt mean that there are only humans. Maybe there are but it isnt stated anywere. SoulRipper 13:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC) :::However Horizon and Freedom's Progress were founded by humans looking to get away from the Alliance and its politics. We have one quarian, one, on Freedom Progress and no evidence of any other aliens. Again, while I have no objects on articles like the Citadel, I have a problem with Freedom's Progress and Horizon. They are more likely to have only humans, and considering the nature on what they were founded, and while yes we only see a small part of the colonies, it is much more likely that they have humans only compared to the Citadel, Terra Nova, and Earth, because we have proof that asari live on Earth thanks to August 22nds CDN article. :::As to accuracy, I really don't see a problem with it, or how it is inaccurate for trhat matter. It states that the population is ____ humans. That doesn't discount aliens, and we have proof in more than one case, but if you insist on rewording it fine. Lancer1289 13:52, August 25, 2010 (UTC) Conversion Why don't you want to insert a conversion into the SI units? SkyBon 23:11, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :Because source says feet. We don't convert from Kilometers to miles do we? Because if we are going from feet to meters, then we have to go the other way as well to be fair. Are we going to do that, of course not because it uses km in the Codex. It is pointless and note that you are also edit warring at this point. Lancer1289 23:13, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::Canon sources are canon sources. It says 20 feet. Not 6 meters. And last I checked, 20 feet =/= 6 meters. Canon sources overrule inaccurate conversions. SpartHawg948 23:14, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::I am not talking about replacing the original value, but about merely adding a conversion. SkyBon 23:16, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :::And again, we have a canon source for feet, and not meters. Since you want to go one way, then you must be willing to go the other as well. So that would mean converting every number on this site. So dreadnoughs would read "800 meters (2625 feet) to 1 Kilometer (3621 feet)". Are we going to do that either, of course not because the Codex uses meters and kilometers so we use them there as well. Canon overrides conversions. Again if you want one, then you have to have both. And I suspsect that you don't want that. Lancer1289 23:21, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::Thanks for addressing my point about inaccurate conversions vs canon sources. Really appreciate being ignored. Way to make a compelling argument. Just to restate, 20 feet =/= 6 meters. SpartHawg948 23:22, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :::::Just for this needless debate to end, if we were to use conversions, then we would have use them for every number on the site. For example the dreadnought section of the Starships article would then read: "Dreadnoughts range from 800 meters (2625 feet) to one kilometer long (3621 feet), with a main gun of commensurate length. An 800-meter (2625 feet) mass accelerator is capable of accelerating one twenty-kilogram slug (44.1 lbs) to a velocity of 4025 km/s (2501 mp/s) (1.3% the speed of light) every two seconds." That just looks sloppy and is completely unnecessary as the Codex uses SI units. Ascension has Imperial Units, so we use them where appropiate. This is pointless as again canon measurements override conversions. Finally, again, if you want it one way, then you have to be willing to accept the other way as well. Also address Spart's point please as I want an answer as well. Lancer1289 23:26, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Well, giving values both in Imperial and SI in Codex would be great too. As for precision, it has to be determined whether the value is exact or not. For example 'threw 20 feet' does not mean that the one threw 240 inches exactly. That's why a close conversion should be acceptable. SkyBon 23:30, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Hmmm... canon source - "He flew twenty feet through the air before slamming down on one of the tables." (P 110). Note it says 20 feet. Not nearly 20 feet. So, you'd need to justify your statement that canon is not correct. Close only counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons, not canon. It is or it isn't. And, given that 6 meters does not equal the distance the canon source tells us Nick flew, a "close conversion" is not acceptable. It's shoddy approximation. SpartHawg948 23:34, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :::::(edit conflict)And how about since the Codex is copied VERBATIM from the game, absolutely not. We use the appropriate measurements when necessary, and putting something like I have above on every number on the site, is unnecessary, time consuming, and looks sloppy compared to how it is now. Bottom line is the source says feet, we say feet; if it says meters, then we say meters. There is absolutely no reason to have both listed. As to accuracy, it doesn't matter as it clearly says feet, so again feet is used. No need for meters, or feet, or miles, when it is uncalled for. Lancer1289 23:36, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::::What about the readers who are unfamiliar with Imperial? SkyBon 23:47, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :::::::They can muddle through just the same as readers who are unfamiliar with metric do on pages where metric is used. SpartHawg948 23:48, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::That's not quite reader-friendly attitude. SkyBon 23:51, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::(edit conflict)Exactly. However since the games are rated M, 18+, etc. most people playing them have probably seen both, and used both. This debate is pointless again as we use the labels where appropriate, and suing both looks sloppy and wouldn't be considered canon as we have canon descriptions from the books, and the Codex. And that especially is where this would be inappropriate for reasons listed above. Lancer1289 23:52, August 26, 2010 (UTC) ::::::::::(edit conflict)Neither is assuming that inaccurate metric conversions should take precedence over accurate standard measures taken from canon. Life is imperfect. Get used to it. Not every situation has a nice, fuzzy, happy ending. Sometimes the imperfect status quo is the best of bad alternatives. Accuracy trumps 'reader-friendly attitude'. SpartHawg948 23:54, August 26, 2010 (UTC) :::::::::(Edit conflcit)And since when do conversations, that probably won't be accurate, override canon, not recently unless something changed when I wasn't looking. We use the appropriate measurements where they are called for based on canon sources. Again a source uses Imperial, then we use Imperial; a sources uses metric, then we use metric. There is no reason to have both when only one is called for. Accuracy takes precedence over "reader-friendly attitude." Lancer1289 23:57, August 26, 2010 (UTC) Idea I have created a template Template:Mass Effect News. If we use it on the main page, we can keep the old news on the template page instead of deleting them. SkyBon 09:08, August 27, 2010 (UTC) :Can't really say I see the usefulness of it. After all, the way the discussion is currently leaning is towards archiving old news in a manner similar to how it's done at Wookieepedia, and a template does not factor into that. Additionally, templates should not be created on a whim like this. Site policy calls for the template to be proposed and discussed before being implemented. It can be sandboxed for demonstration purposes, but not created. SpartHawg948 09:23, August 27, 2010 (UTC) ::Indeed templates like this are to be at the very least discussed with an admin before implementation. Like I did with the redirect template, even though I was an admin at the time. I don't like the template and it serves no purpose. And just to note, this is not the discussion I'm talking about, this is a reaction to the creation of a needless template that serves no purpose and probably will be deleted. Lancer1289 15:00, August 27, 2010 (UTC) :::Well, maybe it is my Wikipedia trait of being bold and doing everything myself. SkyBon 19:56, August 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::Once again, all I can say to that is 'Thank God we aren't Wikipedia!' If we did things the way they do, I'd be surprised if we had half the editors we do. SpartHawg948 20:08, August 27, 2010 (UTC) :::::Indeed we have our autonomy, please don't take that away. If we did, then we probably would only have the half that Spart said. Although I think that number would be less, I'd would think a third. Lancer1289 20:21, August 27, 2010 (UTC) ::::::I think one of my favorite lines from wikipedia was when a user, not an admin but nevertheless a user who has been elevated above the rank and file (being a 'reviewer' and having rollback rights and such), said "Editors don't have "rights" per se. Editors, rather, have obligations to follow policies and guidelines (including behavioral ones)." WTF? Editors don't have rights? He then goes on to say that when "the community" decides that a user has crossed the line, they can have their privileges removed. Editors don't have rights, and can be subjected to mob-rule, popularity contests, and witch-hunts? That's no system I want anything to do with. I like our system, in which everybody has rights, and everybody gets a fair shake. SpartHawg948 20:28, August 27, 2010 (UTC) :::::::Just a few words on that: Wow; WTF indeed; and I see anarchy coming from that scenario. Defiantly no system I want a part of either. Just the fact one of them said that scares me. Lancer1289 20:31, August 27, 2010 (UTC) Another Idea i have an idea on how to expand the wiki you should put a did you know section on the home page :And what idea would that be. Also why do we need a "Did you Know" section? I don't see a reason for the main page. However I am curious. Lancer1289 16:20, August 28, 2010 (UTC) Congrats Id like to the first to say congrats to your 11,000 edit.Legionwrex 15:40, August 28, 2010 (UTC) :Well thank you, however as I said, I never though I'd have that many edits by now. Mid next year, yes, but not mid this year. Lancer1289 16:21, August 28, 2010 (UTC) Post Mission emails Lancer, I noticed you moved the Professor (Dossier page) "post mission email" from its own section to a subsection of the Walkthrough, for the reason that that matches other pages. First, which others? (e.g. it doesn't match Archangels). Second, does it really make sense to have those as subsections to the walkthrough? (I suppose it doesn't much matter, and so if there is a convention, that should be followed. Just want your opinion) --AnotherRho 01:11, August 29, 2010 (UTC) :Yes I see that, curious. However any emails, logs, datapads, either from the assignment itself, or after it should be in the walkthrough before the enemies subsection. It is consistent with the Assignments, see N7: Lost Operative, and I can't think of any others at the moment. Hope that answers your question as the Pizza guy is at the door right now. Lancer1289 01:26, August 29, 2010 (UTC) :Ok I found a few other examples, Horizon (mission), Tali: Treason, Jacob: The Gift of Greatness. Also according to the MoS for missions and assignments, all emails, logs, and that like are supposed to be in the walkthrough. Sorry about the quick message earlier, as I just wanted my pizza after the place I ordered from, no need to mention names as I do like the place, messed up my order so badly that they had to remake the whole thing. So I got it free, per their policy on messing up orders, and they delivered it free. I also got something extra for free as well. So again I do hope that answers your question. Lancer1289 01:50, August 29, 2010 (UTC) ::Yes, thanks, and thanks for finding others. I've found a couple more as well, so if I add any more emails, will follow the convention. -- Glad to hear they fixed your order, and hey, free pizza! ::Annnnnd I've another question. The cleanup tag on two Pinnacle Station articles say, "Verify in-game journal entry" in a note (and in the history). What's this mean? What the journal entries say, when one clicks on "journal"? And how/where would such info be put in the article (I can't find any examples of pages that quote the journal). AnotherRho 02:10, August 29, 2010 (UTC) :::Soryr for the long wait time, but I had to figure out what you were talking about. As to the tags, I am the one who added them because I'm not certain that those are the official entries, which is the only thing that is supposed to be on the top of the page. The opening blurb at the top is the journal entry, and that is supposed to be the only thing at top. :::I also discovered almost all of the ME assignments don't have the approppiate Journal entries, so I'm fixing that. Also I had forgotten about those, and since I'm on a playthrough of ME, both for cleaning up the UNC assignments, and now for journal entries, I'll be sure to get around to them. If you have any more questions don't hesitate to ask. Lancer1289 02:24, August 29, 2010 (UTC) ::::Oh yeah, the first lines are the journals. Duh. Thanks. AnotherRho 02:34, August 29, 2010 (UTC) :::::No problem, that's what I'm here for. :) Lancer1289 02:37, August 29, 2010 (UTC) Citadel: Ritas Sister Mind if I upload some screenshots for that article. I saw that it has a "I need image" tag, so I took some. Its one for Rita, two for Jenna (one Chora's Den and one Flux), one for Jax and two for Chellick (one Chora's Den and one C-Sec). Also I have one screenshot for Flinch and one for the Turian Guard from the Citadel: Old Friends mission. SoulRipper 17:28, August 30, 2010 (UTC)